On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 08:45:58AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 11:18:10PM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> > So does this mean that ALL Debian developers are banned from using BitKeeper?
> Some interesting quotes (hopefully not quoted out of context;
> read the origional thread to be sure) from the thread:
> Larry: "Distributions do not *SELL* CVS, they distribute CVS."
> tom_gall@mac.com: "Of course they [redhat] sell CVS. I give them money,
> they give me a CD, that CD has CVS on it."
> Larry says in response "We're not changing the wording in the license
> just because you have a problem with it. Unless some lawyer wants to
> explain to me why this wording doesn't do what I want it to do, and
> unless I actually believe they are operating in the best interests of
> BitMover, the language stands as it is.
Not presuming to speak for what Larry does or doesn't think is in the
best interests of BitMover, but the license text as quoted does say:
Notwithstanding any other terms in this License, this
License is not available to You if You [...] develop [...] a
product which contains substantially similar capabilities of
the BitKeeper Software, or, in the reasonable opinion of
BitMover, competes with the BitKeeper Software.
Red Hat Linux is a product which *contains* substantially similar
capabilities of the BitKeeper Software. Debian GNU/Linux is a product
which *contains* substantially similar capabilities. Therefore,
regardless of whether anyone's truly selling CVS or SVN, all of us are
developing products which contain capabilities similar to BitKeeper. If
it is really Larry's intention to not discriminate against distributors
of GNU/Linux, he's going to have to refine his license somewhat, because
the current text clearly allows him to go after any {Debian,Red
Hat,Mandrake,...} developer that he decides should not be using his
product.
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp1OyoRwoDdH.pgp
Description: PGP signature